A new Rule Governing a Charge vs. Charge?

[BullBuchanan]

I was just wondering what everyone thought about a rule simulating the effect of two armies charging directly at one another. I personally think it would be interesting personally for there to be a charge reaction under special cirumstances where some form of test could be made that would allow an army to charge their chargers, thus getting their attacks at the same time, and simulating the clash of charging forces in the middle of the field.

Any thoughts on this?

[Lord Lucifer]

I think it's already covered in the standard 'charge responses'
In that 'Hold' isn't necessarily standing still and waiting for the enemy to hit you, but in the abstract represents meeting the enemy head-on.
The actual charge dictates who gets the initiative in the attack rather than "Who's the one that's moving", and the position of the charge receivers marks the point at which the two advancing/charging forces meet, or where those who do not have the initiative are forced back to.


It's a definate gameplay mechanic that is representative of an abstract concept of charge/counter-charge

[Guilliman]

It could work just like the Counter Charge rule for 40k where none of the involved units get any bonuses for charging.

[BullBuchanan]

Well this sure isn't going to happen, but I think its an interesting idea. I think it would be pretty cool if all units were given a stamina/endurance stat or something along those lines, and this scenario would have a roll put against that stat, plus it would open doors for new types of manouevering and the like. There could be modifiers to your stamina based on charging or marching the past turn for instance. This could make it so that ever consecutive turn a unit wishes to march they must make a roll against their stamina, possibly modified by a charge or march etc the previous turn. I think this would place a greater emphasis on the movement phase and deployemnt of troops, and really make the game more strategic. As it stands now most of the strategy as far as movement goes is just in relation to placing things out of charge possibility. Now you may have to worry about moving a unit too far out and a friendly unit not having enough stamina to make it all the way there after marching the distance of the map.

Like I said probably the most unlikely thing GW is ever likely to do, but it would put some caps on guys like bretonnians, while maybe opening the door for armies like High Elves(HE would naturally have a higher End, due to lighter armour, and racial traits. I think it also may help out some underplayed/underpowered armies, depending on what they are.

[Festus]

Hi

Like I said probably the most unlikely thing GW is ever likely to do, but it would put some caps on guys like bretonnians, while maybe opening the door for armies like High Elves(HE would naturally have a higher End, due to lighter armour, and racial traits. I think it also may help out some underplayed/underpowered armies, depending on what they are.

Well, the charging rules are fine as they are, than you very much.
The countercharge rule will in all instances be very clumsy and game-breaking IMNSHO: The Norse list from the CJ had one version and it didn't work out.

Afraid of Brets?
Bring them on.

You can easily stop a Lance charge in its tracks and once this is achieved, the Brets have to fight a war of attrition which they are likely to loose, as they usually only have a few units.

Greetings
Festus

[User Name]

it would be a good idea but then we would hardly geet any new players to the game becsaue the rules would become much more complicated, we would probably end up with another rule book governing movement. The game is ment to be relitevly simple without certan units getting movement bonuses that depended on certan things. In the end there would probably end being quite a few bugs in the rules making certan units and armies horribly overpowerd. 40K has such rules because they do not have to worry aobut manouvering and flanks so much

[taer]

Isn't that what the entire Fantast battle game represents pretty much?

No, wait....that's 40k...

[m1s1n]

Yeah, I think things are fine the way they are. In fact--I think from this point out I will maintian a "fine the way they are" attitude until proven objectively broken.

[BullBuchanan]

Yeah, I think things are fine the way they are. In fact--I think from this point out I will maintian a "fine the way they are" attitude until proven objectively broken.

well thats the kind of closed minded attitude you've had from the get-go so I don't really think its necesarry to say.

[Lord Lucifer]

Then I shall elaborate of m1s1n's point to make it more than 'goes without saying'

The rules work more than adequately at the moment. The rules are good.
In particular, those governing movement are very good in how they are incorporated into the rest of the system.
Most players can see that the movement phase can have a huge impact on the game, and the actions available within the phase allow you to plan the game better, in terms of tactics and flow.

A counter-charge rule is a superfluous level of detail that would add little, if anything, to the game. It would, however, detract from the flow and defined turn sequence, much like Overwatch did for 40K (the reasoning why it was dropped, in fact, you don't get to play in your opponents' turn, you do your actions in YOUR turn)

It would also be difficult to implement any form of all-encompassing counter-charge rule in a fair and balanced manner that won't unfairly weaken chargers or lead to 'mexican stand-off' situations.

For a scenario, or special unit, perhaps an appropriate rule can be worked out and maybe even balanced.
But for a game-wide rule, it will detract from the game more than add to it

[BullBuchanan]

Then I shall elaborate of m1s1n's point to make it more than 'goes without saying'

The rules work more than adequately at the moment. The rules are good.
In particular, those governing movement are very good in how they are incorporated into the rest of the system.
Most players can see that the movement phase can have a huge impact on the game, and the actions available within the phase allow you to plan the game better, in terms of tactics and flow.

A counter-charge rule is a superfluous level of detail that would add little, if anything, to the game. It would, however, detract from the flow and defined turn sequence, much like Overwatch did for 40K (the reasoning why it was dropped, in fact, you don't get to play in your opponents' turn, you do your actions in YOUR turn)

It would also be difficult to implement any form of all-encompassing counter-charge rule in a fair and balanced manner that won't unfairly weaken chargers or lead to 'mexican stand-off' situations.

For a scenario, or special unit, perhaps an appropriate rule can be worked out and maybe even balanced.
But for a game-wide rule, it will detract from the game more than add to it

If only more people who disagreed with me could do it in a manner like this, I think I'd retain some of my sanity.....Thank Lucifer